Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

I think that the mind might better be compared to the wind, James.Isn't it the wind which forms, influences, drives the waves which are a part of the water/ocean? as it is the mind which forms/influences/drives ~ et cetera, the matter.

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Mr Reasonable wrote:Are mind and matter actually distinct? I think that's the better question. To ask if they are interdependent is to assume a duality, which is, you know, kind of a big deal in philosophy.

What if you believed that everything adhered to some pattern or another? Then what if you believed that patterns, inasmuch as they are patterns, share some essential component thats necessary for them to be defined as such? Then what if you believed that therefore, any function, movement, attribute, etc, of the mind could be understood as having a 1:1 correlation to some function, movement, or attribute of the brain bevause you know...patterns. Then even if there was a duality, you could ignore it for all intents and purposes and move on with a simpler, less redundant theory of how shit it. What can the mind do without the brain? Nothing. What can the brain do without the mind? Hell man, you can't even demonstrate that the mind exists independently of the brain. You're at a real epistemic disadvantage with any argument that attempts to do so, because you can't observe a mind, only a brain.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Mind is dependent upon matter because it is a function of the brain and the brain is physical and with out any there could not be minds. Matter is not dependent upon mind because it exists in forms other than brains though it would still not be dependent in brain form. Since whether or not a brain functions is incidental to the fact it is made from matter. While mind cannot function in a dead brain the brain still exists

Arguments that, "the mind/soul does this and therefore the matter does this" postulate mind unnecessarily. If there's no way to determine what the mind is doing without referencing the matter, then how are you even to describe the mind other than to describe the matter? This makes me ask why would one make a description more complex than needed to have an accurate and serviceable theory? Reductionism? Supervenience? Identity theory? Those are some hard hitters man.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Neuro science cannot fully explain how the brain functions. Which allows those who believe in woo to start filling in the gaps. Believing in something does not make it true though. I reject any supernatural or metaphysical explanations or attempts to equate the mind with soul because there is no evidence to support any of this whatsoever. Just because some aspects of brain function such as the hard problem of consciousness are not understood does not mean there is no rational explanation for it. Just that one is not known at this point in time. Supernatural or metaphysical explanations are superfluous because they do not advance knowledge or understanding of brain function at all

I only accept scientific explanations for observable phenomena because those are the only ones which can be shown to be trueNon scientific explanations cannot be shown to be true and furthermore there is no rational reason to think that they could be

Right. That's why I reduce mind to matter. There are varying levels of certainty that depend on the methods, the observable concrete facts of a given matter, etc. We have greater certainty about observable physical phenomena than we do speculative, postulated entities. So why insist that there's something other than what we can see when we can construct serviceable theories and adequate/complete descriptions off physical observations. You wouldn't look at a tree, see that is functions as a tree, and learn about photosynthesis, and then still insist that the tree must have a soul in order to move, grow, and function as a tree. The increase in complexity of a person over a tree doesn't negate this either. A watch with more gears and a more accurate movement no more needs a soul than a sundial does.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Now some think human beings are special. That we are more than animals. That we have things called souls. And that metaphysical or supernatural explanations are justified on the grounds that science does not and cannot know everything. I have zero doubt that they believe these things but this is not the basis upon which I try to understand the world. Now mind is obviously a function of the brain but there are still gaps in knowledge. Science slowly adds to this over time but questions will always be asked because such knowledge will never be complete given as science is essentially an inductive discipline not a deductive one. Those with metaphysical or supernatural solutions will therefore always find a reason to fill those gaps. But I think only science can fill them. Where it cannot then they should be left empty

I think explaining everything, amd satisfying every objection is an important distinction to note. You've got the principle of sufficient reason going along these lines. A complete and comprehensive description of a thing can in fact exist. Just as well, a person who fails to understand and accept it can exist. Once I tell a guy, "put the peanut butter on one slice of bread, and the jelly on another, the put the 2 slices together with the peanut butter and the jelly touching", there will be someone in the world who fails to make the sandwich for one or many reasons. This doesn't mean that everything hasn't been explained.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

If the sound of a tree falling in a forest is not sound until we hear it, then perhaps a scent or what it means, is not the same as the physical scent?

The truth is naked,Once it is written it is lost.Genius is the result of the entire product of man.The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas